General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSeeing a Cash Cow in Museums’ Precious Art
I found this article absolutely chilling. I really can see a future where the Jamie Dimon's of the world have art that was enjoyed by all of us in their private collections. People had better wake up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/arts/design/seeing-a-cash-cow-in-museums-precious-art.html?_r=0
MÜNSTER, Germany The director of the art museum here dreads the idea of losing some of his towns biggest cultural attractions. He worries about a Henry Moore sculpture that has been on exhibition for almost 40 years, knowing it could vanish along with Renaissance panels and Eduardo Chillida benches in a sale to settle government debts.
Theres an expression in German: Dont sell your family silver, said the director, Hermann Arnhold of the Westphalian State Museum for Art and Cultural History. Would you sell the story of your family? If you sell important artworks, that means selling a part of your history.
liberal N proud
(60,344 posts)That is the true conservative agenda when they talk smaller government.
Puglover
(16,380 posts)Break by enacting impossible payments for future retirees and then when it's broken go after that money. It's classic.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)and when I walk through there we sometimes talk about all the private collections, and all the incredible works of beauty that will never be seen because they are gathering dust in some rich assholes living room.
You want to collect art? Collect it and give it to a museum to display. Great works of art are not just for the rich.
Puglover
(16,380 posts)that never see the light of day in museums due to space limitations. I thought "So rotate the goddamned things"
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)I remember visiting the Smithsonian decades ago on a special tour to their "attic" where I saw the original "Teddy bear," JFK's rocking chair, and Lincoln's desk. They were only off display at the time because of exhibit rotation.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)Our museum has a bunch of permanent stuff and then traveling exhibits.. We go whenever they bring in a new exhibit.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Or at least not happen easily. The code of ethics of the Association of American Museum Directors (AAMD) specifies that works of art may not be sold for purposes other than acquisitions of works of art for the collection. In other words, a museum can't sell works to cover operating expenses or deficits; only to buy other (perhaps more relevant or desirable) works. Those who attempt to do so (recently, e.g., the National Academy Museum in New York, or Brandeis University's Rose Art Museum) have been met with swift reprisalssanctions so severe and backlash so rampant that the Rose, for example, had to rescind its plan to deaccession any works.
Of course, that body could some day change its ethics code, which specifies that works are "held in trust for the public and which keeps museums in good public standing. But for now, this ain't gonna happen in the US on any scale.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Where the 'Emergency Manager' appointed by the Republican governor was considering looting the museum to try and pay off bills?
frazzled
(18,402 posts)And the Detroit museum is a bit unusual: the museum, and the works in it, are owned by the city. Still, there was too big an outcry, and money was raised elsewhere.
It would have been so short-sighted had they actually gone through with selling the art.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Instead of selling it outright, what about renting it out for say, 3 months out of the year, with insanely high contracts such that if someone you rent it to lets it get damaged or stolen, they owe you ten times the appraised value?